[Arktwo] The Way I See It

[Bruce Beach]

Generals excel either at Strategy
or Tactics.

One or the other.
That is the way the human brain is wired.

You want your top decision makers
to be strategists -
and you want to leave the execution of the war
to tacticians.

Sharon was a topnotch strategist.
Olmert is a tactician -
but Sharon had already established the strategy -
and now it is up to Olmert
to execute the tactics.

Whatever you may think
about the goals of Bush and Israel -
today I am going to talk about tactics.
The short range actions
rather than the long range goals.

Without qualification
Israel states the following premises:

a. That its greatest threat is Iran
b. That it can't permit Iran to have nukes
c. That it can't rely upon others to protect it.

On Oct 03, 2005
(now over a year ago)
I quoted the following from Reuters.
(The source link no longer works).

"MK Yosef Lapid (Shinui) told the Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations on Friday that unless the world and the United States
act to curb Iran's nuclear aspirations, 'Israel will have to act.'"

At the same time
(September 30, 2005)
THE WASHINGTON TIMES was quoting:

	http://tinyurl.com/chnus

The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs
-- by force if necessary --
because conventional diplomacy will not work, three
senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned
yesterday.
    As a last resort, they said, ISRAEL ITSELF WOULD ACT UNILATERALLY to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

Again from that same time
and that same newsletter
a year ago:

	http://tinyurl.com/cnamb

"Sharon presented Bush with satellite photos, said Israel would not wait
forever before attacking"

I held that was the strategy then -
and that Sharon would attack about
12 days after Christmas in 2005.
His stroke intervened -
and the political situation
made it impossible for Olmert to carry through
even if he had the inclination to do so -
at the time.

So -
here we are a year later.

You may disagree with the above three premises.
That would be one thing -
but it would be an entirely different thing
to disagree that these ARE Israel's premises.

Assuming these three premises -
then this is the way that I analyze
the current situation.

A. While many people saw the recent Lebanon war
as being an Israeli failure -
it was exactly what I repeatedly stated to expect
as a part of the Sharon strategy.

The following is a quote
from an earlier newsletter:

----

In an open conflict with Iran -
Israel could expect massive ground force response
from Muslims in its immediate vicinity -
and while these latter
may not be highly technologically equipped -
in a combined effort they could
have easily overwhelmed
the Israeli Defensive Forces
in Gaza, the territories, on the northern front,
such as in Sheba Farms, and elsewhere
where Israel was spread too thin.

Therefore it was necessary
for Israel to protect its core -
to erect the wall -
and to quite candidly create a killing ground -
where these hordes could be stopped.
For this reason -
to protect the settlers -
no matter how much it inconvenienced them -
or displeased them -
it was necessary to bring them within
the castle walls.

This was but
Step One -
of the overall plan -
to be out of Gaza, Lebanon,
and as much as possible - the territories -
and behind the safety of the wall.

Step Two
in the plans of the Strategic Generals
(Sharon and Netanyahu)
was a pre-emptive strike
against Iran.

----

Step One has been executed
as well as possible.
Some things went very well -
others less well than Israel hoped -
but such are the fortunes of war.

The withdrawal from Gaza
should be looked upon as a marvelous success.
The retreat itself -
said to be the most difficult military maneuver -
was marvelously executed.
The aftermathe left the Palestinians
fighting among themselves
and in total disarray.

The withdrawal from Lebanon
went almost equally well.
The primary goal of destroying Hezbollah's
intermediary range rockets was largely achieved -
but the aftermath brought unexpected consequences
which I will discuss shortly.

The question is -
where do we stand in the execution
of Step Two.

The unexpected consequences
in the Step One withdrawal from Lebanon
are having a major impact on Step Two.

Israel could have imagined
that the UN might waffle
on the removal of arms from Hezbollah.

And Israel might have imagined
that with all of France's nice words
about being a peace keeper
that its true sympathies would lie with the Arabs.

But surely it was beyond Israel's imagination
(and certainly beyond mine)
that Russia would

a. come charging in
with Chechyan Arab Rebel / Terrorist troops
to throw its weight behind Hezbollah,

b. create a defensive line for the Arabs,

c. install and man sophisticated
   surveillance / intelligence gathering equipment

d. giving direct support to its allies
   Syria and Iran
   in their preparation to fight Israel.

Russia had admittedly concluded
a recent agreement with Syria
to create its large warm port outside of Russia.

Russia had admittedly supplied
anti-missile weaponry to Syria.

Russia had admittedly just signed
a large arms agreement with Syria.

AND

Russia certainly has very close arrangements
with Iran regarding its nuclear development -
the supplying of TOR defense systems -
stationing many Russian technicians in Iran -
and vowing to protect Iran.

BUT -
until now -
no one would have anticipated
that Russia would intentionally station
belligerent soldiers on Israels borders
and snub the UN peace keeping efforts.

With such a weak -
one could almost say spineless -
and perhaps worse yet -
unabashedly sympathetic to the other side -
UN Peace Keeping Force in Lebanon -
it is apparant that the Hezbollah arms buildup
is ACCELERATING at a rapid pace.
This -
along with the appearance of
and rapidly being established
unfriendly Russian Forces
certainly increases the urgency
for Israel to implement Step Two.

----
As I have discussed in recent newsletters
the vocal / emotional / temperature
from the Muslim religious / political leaders
is greatly intensifying
towards the end of Rammadan
from
Iran
Hezbollah
Syria
Hamas
and all of their sympathizers.

At the same time -
a political window is closing
for Bush and Olmert -
but which they are preparing to pre-empt.

The immense multi-national UN naval build-up
in the Mediteranian -
the periphery control and response location
for a Gulf Naval war -
is under US command.

Three major strike forces
have now focused on Iran -
with a convergence date of October 21st,
the day before the New Moon -
and the preferred strike date of US airpower
which has stated as one of its mottos -
"The Night Belongs To US".

Numbers of people
who disagree with my analysis -
tell me that the scheduled arrival
is simply normal Enterprise / Eisenhower rotation -
but that would not explain the Boxer Strike Force -
nor why it armed itself so exceptionally heavy
before heading off.

Now -
my key question is -
given that:

	a. The US people do not have the will
	   to take on a third war.
	b. Bush does not have sufficient support
	   in either the Congress or Pentagon.
	c. The world is opposed to such an action.

if - just if --
Israel has decided that it MUST go ahead -
would it rather do so
while the major US Enterprise Strike Force
is in the Gulf -
or would it rather wait
until it had gone home.

If Israel strikes Syria and/or Iran
and Iran
(in its mutual defense agreement with Syria)
(or on its own)
unleashes
(as it has stated it will)
a full attack against US forces
in Iraq -
and on the Gulf -
and through Hezbollah and Hamas
on Israel's borders -
then we can expect that
the US will respond to that -
no matter the opinion of certain Generals
in the Pentagon.

There is also the possibility
that with Russian forces
being struck (collaterally or not)
in Iran and Lebanon -
that Russia may also respond.

----
There is also the little matter going on
with North Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China,
that if people in that part of the world
decide to take advantage of the confusion -
things may get exciting all over.

And also -
Pakistan has said -
if anything happens to Iran
they will immediately strike India -
because they know their choice
regarding their nuclear weapons
is to use them or lose them.

----
Over a year ago (8/2005)
ElBaradei, (the Chairman of the IAEA -
UN International Atomic Energy Agency)
stated:

"It's not a matter of dispute as to whether Iran lied and deceived in the
past. We made that very clear in our reports."

(link no longer works)

----

Then on December 7, 2005

http://tinyurl.com/oclqj

Mohamed ElBaradei, the chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA),... stated that ... it will take Iran only "a few months to produce a
nuclear bomb."

[There was a lot of discussion
and dispute about this statement -
so for details look at:]

http://tinyurl.com/pw4ct

----
Since then -
there has been a lot of waffling
about Iran's intentions
and the timetables involved -
but to me it is unlikely
that Israel will take a very optimistic view
about these matters.

Nevertheless -
when Olmert and his advisors meet
day after tomorrow (Sunday)
I am sure that they will view
the departure of the Enterprise as
an inconvenience.

But there is another fly in this ointment.
The timing of this great event -
is not entirely at the discretion
of Olmert and Bush.

----
Once again -
from a year ago.

(link no longer works)

DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch
a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on
its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us.
Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations
which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told
Al-Jazeera TV...

Ergo-
Beach sees the situation
as one of great threat -
not on the 22nd of October -
just ten days away -
but even before that time.

Peace and love,
Bruce
DawnSayer@webpal.org